Estate of Ingrid Birthe Helene Barr

Case Number

22PR00393

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 04/09/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

An Amended Petition was filed on March 13, 2025, and Declaration in support of that amendment filed on the same date.  After review of those documents, the following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

Recommended Denial of Extraordinary Fees.  Attorney for Petitioner requested extraordinary fees in the amount of $11,569.  The reasons and evidence offered in support of the request are not supported by law.

When extraordinary compensation is requested for the personal representative or attorney, allegations must contain enough facts for the Court to exercise discretion pursuant to Probate Code section 10811 and CRC, Rule 7.703, and the evidence must be sufficient to substantiate the allegations.

The allegations in support of the request for extraordinary fees in this case show that all of the alleged extraordinary time involved the preparation of the real property at 970 College Canyon Road for sale.  The allegations do not detail specific legal actions outside of ordinary services already contemplated by the legislature and courts of this state to be subsumed within the statutory fee.  For example, “securing the property” from multiple tenants does not convey any extra legal work that needed to be done by the attorneys for the petitioner. (Benitez Decl., at ¶8.)  A more detailed allegation would include whether the attorneys for petition had to prosecute unlawful detainer claims, what those case numbers were, and the time required to prosecute those claims that qualifies as extraordinary. 

A review of the new billing statement also does not reveal anything warranting extra fees.  The description of the work performed in the billing statements shows acts that are ordinarily part of any estate administration that involves the preparation and sale of real property.  There was no apparent work performed by the attorneys above simple review of sales documents and seeking Court Confirmation of Sale due to an objection.

In addition to the work performed not being extraordinary, the rates charged for the alleged work performed are above the community standard and not supported by law.  The most egregious example of which is charging $265 per hour for a law clerk working as a paralegal on most of the work being billed for this case, the descriptions of which show a clear unfamiliarity with probate procedures.  Entries such as “legal research regarding pertinent California Probate Code sections related to court authorized sales after objection” and "calls with client," along with the bulk of the alleged extraordinary work entries, are for ordinary, not extraordinary work.  A well-respected treatise makes plain:

The amount of compensation for ordinary services to the estate is identical for both the personal representative and the attorney. Prob C §§10800, 10810. This compensation is for performance of the ordinary duties of collection, care, and preservation of estate property during the entire administration. It is also intended to cover incidental expenses, such as photocopies, local telephone calls, postage, computer research, local travel and mileage, and secretarial or clerical services. See, e.g.,Fresno Ct R 7.17(B); Los Angeles Ct R 4.43. The representative may petition the court for reimbursement of additional expenses, such as travel to attend to estate business.

Ordinary services by a representative include services performed in locating and assembling estate assets, paying claims, collecting rents, leasing property, accounting, and making payments necessary to complete the administration. If the representative chooses to employ an agent to perform services that are attributable to carrying out the representative’s ordinary duties, the fees for those services will be charged against the representative’s ordinary compensation. For example, preparing the final accounting is considered part of the representative’s duties; therefore, if the representative hires an accountant to prepare the accounting, the accountant’s fees will be paid from the representative’s ordinary compensation. Estate of Billings (1991) 228 CA3d 426.

(Cal. Decedent Estate Practice (CEB 2024) “Ordinary Compensation,” §30.33.)

Recommended Reduction of Statutory Fees.  Not only do the vague statements in the Declaration fail to allege any fact that warrants extraordinary fees, but as previous notes highlighted, the history of this case reveals evidence in the record of inexperience and/or a lack of competence of the attorneys involved handling common, ordinary Probate Code procedures for the administration of a decedent’s estate that were the direct cause of the unusual amount of hearings and significant delays in the administration of this estate. 

The following is an inexhaustive list of evidence on the record:

• The first hearing in this case (Sept. 21, 2022) resulted in Ms. Benitez requesting a 45 day continuance to clear multiple probate notes involving procedural defects, including publication in the wrong newspaper adjudicated for general circulation in the location of Decedent’s residence.  A list of publications adjudicated newspapers of general circulation in specific areas of this County is readily available on the Court’s website.

• The procedural defects related to the initial petition took three hearings to resolve, delaying the administration of this estate by over 6 months before an Order for Probate was granted.  Even after that was granted, letters did not issue for almost 4 months, without explanation.

• On October 20, 2023, attorneys for Petitioner inappropriately filed a “Petition for Court Authorization to Confirm Proposed Action” that had to be stricken because the filing did not comply with the law. In response to the probate notes identifying this defect, attorneys for petitioner improperly filed the Report of Sale and Petition for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property (outlined in Probate Code section 10308, et seq., enshrined in Form DE-260) via supplement, in conflict with the Probate Code provisions outlining Due Process governing that procedure. The Confirmation of Sale was mandated by code due to an objection to the sale filed by an heir of the estate.  Even when the proper procedure was followed by attorneys for petitioner, the petition was so defective it necessitated amendment, causing the eventual confirmation of sale to be delayed for six months.

• Amendment to the Petition for Final Distribution was required because of attorney’s failure to include known creditor claims and code compliant accounting.

As a result of the above circumstances, and the resulting delay caused, it is recommended the Court deny extraordinary fees and reduce the statutory fee by $3,000.

The court, on the hearing of the petition for final distribution or on a petition for allowance on account of compensation of the representative or attorney, has the authority under Probate Code section 12205 to reduce the statutory compensation if the court considers the delay unreasonable.

The above delays were unreasonable, and attorneys for Petitioner have not shown good cause as to the delays and procedural errors in the above proceedings.

Amended Proposed Order.  The Court should order Petitioner to submit a proposed order on the local form.  A proposed order must be submitted with relief that matches that requested in the petition. (Local Rule 1724(b), subd.(d).)  The proposed order submitted does not contain the requisite findings and orders required by the Probate Code and California Rules of Court, which are located on Local Form SC-6029.

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305